Malwarebytes has new versions

1st of all, before anyone yells @ this old guy... I know there are a couple threads talking about pricing for the new Malwarebytes.

However, I was going to make sure everyone knows Malwarebytes has new versions of their great product for BOTH the free and paid versions. The thing is you don't get these by just hitting Update on your existing Malwarebytes installation. You had/have version 1.7 and now it is 2.0. You must > the Malwarebytes website to attain it. Completely new version for the Free version, Paid or Free Trial. Please, download & install the new version from Malwarebytes.

Well, there's a 1st time for everything. 1st time I've ever heard anyone say "Don't like it" to Malwarebytes. Yes, sometimes the Quick Scan can take 20 mins or something. Usually it's a lot less than that. No matter, in the 'it doesn't matter' sense... can be run whilst still doing other things so, it's a 'who cares' thing. And no matter what it's worth it for the value of what is one of the finest tools available.

I tend to run my scans prior to shutting down, so the time it takes does matter to me and while no AV is 100% effective, if anything tried to get in other than the usual areas, I would hope my Norton 360 would stop those.

I normally use SAS as an additional scanner to Norton's Quick Scan and I have NPE to fall back on for anything more serious.

I should probably just opt out, @ this point. "prior to shutting down"? when, why? Considering the Best Practise is to not power off, sleep maybe but, not off. And, since I am not a fan or supporter of Norton, @ all... Over the years I have seen so much stuff blow right by Norton installations clients of mine have had. In the majority of those & other cases, they had me remove Norton & replace it w/ something else. Aside from that, we have always recommended to customers & anyone that they run a good A-V, plus Malwarebytes periodically and CCleaner as a solid 'team' for their computer. There has rarely been a better, more respected, product than Malwarebytes.

And as I said, the Quick Scan is usually quite fast & even, strikingly, faster in the new version.

@ Drew - I agree that MBAM is good, although some preferred SAS to v1.75 and many others have other scanners as well so are not totally reliant on MBAM - it's the length of time the scan takes that I'm not happy with and neither were some others on the MBAM forum, if I remember rightly.

Norton 360 has kept me safe for a few years and while no AV is 100% effective, safe browsing and not using P2P for illegal downloads will also go a long way and drive-bys are very rare these days (which Norton has also successfully blocked up to now), so I would tend to suspect your clients' browsing habits for those who had become infected - but AVs are only just being brought into line to deal with PuPs which accounts for most infections these days.

I use a laptop on AC so when I'm done, it gets shutdown and the switch at the wall socket switched off.

@ 1PW - Norton 360 is the only paid for security program that I have and I don't bother with Trials, so don't have the Hyper Scan option.

Believe me, I am fully aware of prudent browsing. And, no, the clients where things went past Norton, it was, actually, not due to bad browsing. When I have had clients where bad browsing was @ fault, they received a necessary lecture & some education. No A-V or any version of Malwarebytes will fix stupid.

I understand using a laptop on A/C... many use them, more or less as if they were desktop PCs. maybe I'm suddenly stupid but, I, still, don't why that means shutting it down but, that doesn't matter... old or new version of Malwarebytes, Quick Scan usually does not take very many minutes. I have occasionally seen it take around 20 mins but, thaqt has been on a 1st time use & on machines that had several entries Malwarebytes was finding or had found. On my own machines, for example, Quick Scan is indeed just that, quick.

I'm not going to keep going around in circles. You are the 1st person I have ever heard say that don't like Malwarebytes or that they don't because of how long Quick Scan takes. Let's just leave it @ that. Maybe others care to get involved but, that's enough for me, thanks.

I admit that I'd only done the initial scan but have just done another one and after the Definition updates, it took about a minute longer (20mins 48secs), so we'll have to agree to disagree on our preferences on a shutdown or whatever scan and as for Norton, I'll stick with something that has served me well.

As for Sleep, Hibernate or Shutdown, I don't think that life is so short that shutting down will hurt when completely finished and as some programs/drivers may not work properly after Hibernate, for those who prefer not to shut down, Windows will benefit from the occasional reboot.

And in the "I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it for myself" category:ESET Online Scanner - default scan took 80 minutes 15 secondseset-online-scan.jpgClick to enlarge

All tests carried out on a Window 7 SP1 Home Premium x64 VM (reset before each test) - 9.24 Gb used by OS install. I know it's not a very representative test but I found the results interesting and, in the case of ESET, quite surprising. Sorry but I don't have the time to look at all the options within each antimalware scanner to see whether there's a way of really creating and comparing like-for-like scans.

On a system, not totally dissimilar to yours, I too saw like/increased scan times when comparing QUICK vs THREAT scans. In general we were told that every known dimension, for malware detection, would be increased and this was the price to be paid for increased vigilance. Of course on capable systems like ours, the impact on resources is barely noticed.

On systems with lesser resources, rootkit scanning, though not to be neglected, need not be performed with the greatest of frequency.

e.g. My W7P x64 SP1 i7-2600 system is presently idle and the CPU resource is 1 to 2% while all capabilities in my MBAM2 have been invoked.